An argument against gay marriage-double standards.

MOD EDIT>>>PA<<< Its basic equal protection law. Discrimination is judge by its relation to the governmental interest served. Being a gay couple has no rational relation to the governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Being a heterosexual couple does have a rational relation to the governmental interest in improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce.
MOD EDIT>>>PA<<<
Race also has no rational relation to the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Interracial couples procreate just like same race couples.

 

procreation is irrelevant. there is no rational basis for excluding same sex couples.

procreation is irrelevant. if there was a requirement for the ability, potential or intention to procreate you would have an argument. there isn't, so you don't.

so, back to you having no argument to exclude same sex couples.

 

Your silly proclamations of fact are meaningless. Lets see some evidence.

 

it's not a proclamation. there is no requirement for the ability, intention or potential of procreation in order to marry. you can't deny a civil right on the basis of the INABILITY to procreate if no requirement for the ability exists. that's why you keep losing in court, and state after state is legalizing same sex marriage.

 

Thats why they are denied only if its not a heterosexual couple. Its a classification of people, heterosexual couples. Not a case by case determination of fertility. A distinction you are incapable of grasping.

 

it is invalid, which is why you keep losing in court. you can't exclude an entire class of people from a civil right because they can't procreate(even though they can and do), while simultaneously including millions of other people who also can't procreate.

 

Actually the argument has won many more times than it has lost. That's why 30 states have enshrined into the constitution the limitation to men and women and 4 or 5 other states by statute.

 

it won in the past. it has consistently failed in the last 10 years as marriage has become more equal, because the argument is invalid.

 

ANDERSEN v. KING COUNTY that Ive quoted 100 times is from 2006, but you knew that.

 

Actually I do believe the government does have an interest in encouraging monogamous couples to remain together, including homosexual couples. When you have monogamous marriages and fewer and fewer people sleeping around you have less disease being spread about. To encourage people to marry and remain monogamous to one partner will help disease prevention, or spreading of it through multiple partners.

Also since homosexual couples do frequently have their own children, whether through adoption, surrogacy, IVF, or through use of a sperm bank, their partners and their children will also gain the same government benefits and protections as other families. I would think the government has a lot of interest in protecting it's future adult citizens (all children) in this manner.

 

overturned. same sex marriage is legal in Washington, lol

 

No, the case was not overturned, yes, same sex marriage is legal in Washington by statute, as opposed to constitutional law used in the King County case.
Both facts, of course, irrelevant to your claim that my argument "has consistently failed" in the last 10 years. But irrelevancy is where you frequently dash to for refuge.

 

nope, it's overturned. if a county clerk tried denying a marriage license based on that court ruling, they couple would sue and be issued the license. it is (*)(*)(*)(*)ING HILARIOUS that you keep citing an overturned case to support your refuted argument.

 

Because its not overturned. You obviously don't comprehend the difference between a statutory right and a constitutional right. Creation of a statutory right does not create a constitutional right. If the citizens of Washington were to adopt by referendum a statute or constitutional amendment a limitation of marriage to men and women, and a gay couple sued alleging a violation of their constitutional right, the State and any court decision in the state would cite the King county case as binding judicial precedence that there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.
The new legislation has no effect whatsoever precedential value of the King County case. The absence of a constitutional right to same sex marriage has simply become irrelevant in Washington because currently there is a statutory right to same sex marriage, no need to establish a constitutional right.
And court precedence only has relevance in a court of law, not a county clerks office.

 

nope, it's overturned. if a county clerk tried denying a marriage license based on that court ruling, they couple would sue and be issued the license. it is (*)(*)(*)(*)ING HILARIOUS that you keep citing an overturned case to support your refuted argument.

 

Like I said, court precedence has no relevance in the County clerks office and its precedential authority is only applicable in a court of law

 

And like I said, it's overturned, and if a county clerk tried to deny a marriage license based on the ruling, they would be sued and the license would be issued.

 

Repeating the claim wont make it true.

 

Gee, how do you think everyone here feels about your perpetual repetition of procreation in marriage between men and women?

Especially when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that gay couples frequently do procreate and have families of their own and that procreation is totally irrelevant to who can and cannot marry.

It's all becoming rather repetitive with you.

 

Correct. The fact it's been overturned by the legislature makes it true. Still hilarious watching you cite an overturned case to support a refuted argument.

 

Because I include an argument along with my claims. Include dozens of court precedent to support my claims. Rahl has neither. Just his own personal thoughts that originate in his head.

Actually it is a physical impossibility but I understand why you must convince yourself that they can.

 

Nope, still no constitutional right to same sex marriage in Washington. It could be eliminated just as easily as it had been enacted by referendum. Had their been a constitutional right to same sex marriage, only a Constitutional amendment could have eliminated it.

 

Together, no, but they do have the ability to procreate and they do. Just because it's not in a way you prefer (sexual intercourse I suppose?) doesn't mean they aren't building families like the rest of us.

Whether it be adoption, surrogacy, insemination through use of a sperm bank or IVF, it's happening.

Can you at least admit that they procreate in this fashion dixon and raise families together? Because I have seen it brought up to you constantly and you ignore it and behave as if those families don't count because the kids aren't with their biological parents, or one of their biological parents, which is absurd because you don't seem to have a problem with heterosexual couples that adopt, or that use other methods when their own reproduction fails them.

Do you have a problem with families that have two dads or two moms? Do you have a problem with giving them and their families equal government protection and benefits through marriage because one of more of the parents might not be the child's biological parents?

 

nope. The fact it's been overturned by the legislature makes it true. Still hilarious watching you cite an overturned case to support a refuted argument

- - - Updated - - -

but when you cite overturned cases to support your refuted argument, you look pretty silly.

 

Cases are only overturned by latter cases. And the existence of a statutory right to same sex marriage in Washington doesn't contradict the continued absence of a constitutional right to same sex marriage in Washington.
Washington state could by statute legalize abortions up to the time of birth, but still, there would be no constitutional right to abortions up to the time of birth because court precedent established that only during the first 24 weeks did a woman have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to abortion.